WochenKlausur's intention is doubly political. On the one hand, a small contribution to the transformation of society is made with each project. It makes more sense to have a modest influence on existing circumstances than to only talk about them and criticize them in other ways.

On the other hand, all of these projects bear witness to the opportunity art has to intervene in real events. Thus the notion of what art is can experience a shift. This shift into the realpolitical field of action should - beyond the scope of the WochenKlausur projects - also become apparent in the transformation of the art business. WochenKlausur's intention is just that: If acceptance can be assured for art that opens small fields of concrete action, then the current conception of art will be shaken. This approach will achieve more than polemics and spiteful opposition or an emigration into other disciplines ever would.

WochenKlausur works consciously within the art system. If the art system is to change, then the rules of the game that determine it must at first be recognized. The rules of the game cannot be radically changed, only in small steps. Radical changes disturb the continuity with previous notions of art, and thus inhibit the use of a common conception of art. Using the word art with a changed meaning and yet in a way that is understandable to a large number of people is a prerequisite for admitting any shift in the conception of art.

A transformation of the possibilities open to artistic activity is the real political goal of WochenKlausur and much other activist, interventionist and littoralist art today. If the conception of art changes, then the art business will also change. Polemics and criticism alone will not alter the art business.

Denial doesn't change anything either. Today many people uncompromisingly renounce the art business. They quit the field and devote themselves to other tasks. Yet this denial only strengthens the traditional structures, because those energies that would have liked to have changed the structures are thereby dissipated. This is a mistake that was not recognized in the seventies. It is like the representatives of an opposition party who occasionally make a statement by leaving the parliamentary chambers out of frustration over their powerlessness. Their behavior only makes the result of the vote even more unequivocal. Leaving the rigid art business only results in its being strengthened.

The art business can only be changed through uncompromising practice that operates according to an altered conception of art. The existing art business is still propped up by the marketable artwork, by the original and the commodity. The most effective critique of the traditional position is the constant advocacy of a new conception of art that also gets by without material artworks. If it is not developed and supported by those who are active in art, then such an attack doesn't make much sense. The transformation of the concept art is only possible when art itself changes its own rules and practices. The situation follows a logic similar to that of the referendum among Swiss men concerning the voting rights of Swiss women some years ago. If the men don't want the women to vote, then they will not be allowed to vote, even if admission of both sexes to this referendum would have produced a different outcome.

If art does not realize of its own accord that its rules and definitions are no longer up to date, then everything will remain as it has been. The transformation of the concept art without the agreement of those active in art is impossible, even though this transformation would produce a completely different "art constituency" that would then be responsible for this conception.